2017 (3) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Rs. 9З,309/- against various manufacturers in respect of the goods cleared without payment of duty to M/s Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. (for short, BCML) extending benefit of exemption from excise duty in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995. Equal amount of penalty was imposed, on respective manufacturers. The Commissioner, Central Excise also imposed penalty of Rs. 9З,309/- (cumulative) under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant, ICICI Bank Ltd. besides penalty on other persons involved in the evasion of excise duty. In the present appeal, the appellant is seeking to set aside the said penalty. 3. The issue relates to eligibility of the goods cleared to M/s. BMCL by various manufacturers to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for official use by the said United Nations or the said international organization or are to be, supplied to α project financed by the said United Nations at the said international Organisation and the said project has duty been approved by the Government of India. Explanation - For the purpose of this notification, "international organisation" means an international organisation to which the Central Government has declared, in pursuance or section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947), that the provisions of the Schedule to the said Act shall apply. [Notification No. 108/95-CE., dated 28-8-1995]" 4. The case of the Department, in brief, is that benefit of exemption from payment of duty in ter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ully well that the Ministry of Finance was not the line Ministry for the project with a view to enable M/s BCML, to avail wrongful exemption under the notification at the cost of the Government revenue. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 so far as the appellant is concerned, is not sustainable for the reason that the appellant at no stage of the transaction ever dealt with the excisable goods in question, Ld. Counsel further submitted that admittedly under the notification, the requisite certificate is required to be signed by the Chief Executive of the project handling authority as also the Joint Secretary in the line Ministry. In the insta....